https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

harry wrote:

https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

If they knew how to get there, why haven't they?

On 16/01/2021 11:46, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

If they knew how to get there, why haven't they?


If batteries had been 10 times better than they are we would never have
developed the internal combustion engine.

People think engineering is easy. Its not., Its ****ing hard.



--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On 16/01/2021 11:40, harry wrote:
https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

Written almost two years ago. Is there a current update somewhere?

--

Jeff

On 16/01/2021 12:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 03:40:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

Other news: Fusion reactors are just a year or two away.

Fusion is more likely than (radically) better batteries.
I spent a lot of time looking into this. Lithium air could just about
see an electric transatlantic aircraft but its at least 25 years away,

The way forward is to ditch renewables and build fission reactors, and
then use synthetic fuels and what's left of fossil as a stop gap.

Naturally, since it's the correct thing to do, it won't happen.


--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

The thing is, every since the very beginning of electricity being used,
people have tried to store it efficiently. It has not been possible to
increase this efficiency. I mean a two lake system and a pump is not very
portable, and most of the other ways to produce it also use one form of
energy to make electricity, and one assumes if everyone switched off, the
generators would still have to run due to the inherent losses.

It really will take a lot longer to crack the problem, and as one knows
from hydrogen storage the greater the density the more dangerous the fuel.
Just fire a nail gun into a modern laptop battery and see what happens.
Not something to do while standing by it or indoors.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2021 11:46, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

If they knew how to get there, why haven't they?


If batteries had been 10 times better than they are we would never have
developed the internal combustion engine.

People think engineering is easy. Its not., Its ****ing hard.



--
"Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of other
ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

"Charging an electric car costs much less than paying for an equivalent
amount of gasoline"

only because 90% of the consumer cost of "gas" is an artificial tax

Given that the costs of making electricity from carbon fuels is about par
with any alternative method, it cannot possibly be the case that "raw"
electric "fuel" costs less than raw carbon fuel.

tim... wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

"Charging an electric car costs much less than paying for an equivalent
amount of gasoline"

only because 90% of the consumer cost of "gas" is an artificial tax

Given that the costs of making electricity from carbon fuels is about
par with any alternative method, it cannot possibly be the case that
"raw" electric "fuel" costs less than raw carbon fuel.

When someone presents a graphic like the one here, you'd need
to study their sums very carefully for mistakes. The article itself
mentions potential sources of error or what metrics might be best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_o...city_by_source

"Note: Some caution must be taken when using formulas for the
levelized cost, as they often embody unseen assumptions,
neglect effects like taxes, and may be specified in real
or nominal levelized cost. For example, other versions of
the above formula do not discount the electricity stream."

But I've been seeing articles on Arstechnica for the last couple
of years, where it's been mentioned that wind farm developers have
been offering very attractive contracts for power. It's just possible
that the graphic in that article, declaring wind a winner, isn't
far off.

But since those graphs are also used to "sell things",
we can't really trust them all that much.

Paul

On 16/01/2021 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2021 12:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 03:40:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://qz.com/1588236/how-we-get-to...-breakthrough/

Other news: Fusion reactors are just a year or two away.

Fusion is more likely than (radically) better batteries.

Could you not run a Tesla or airplane off beta voltaic batteries. It
might bump the price of a bit..., but in principle it could work,
couldn't it?